1. Self-monitoring / Glucose self-monitoring |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
0.1 [-0.96, 1.17] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in glucose self-monitoring but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
62 |
0.1 [-0.96, 1.17] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
2. Self-management behaviours / Foot care |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
0.29 [-0.24, 0.83] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in foot care self-management but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
62 |
0.29 [-0.24, 0.83] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
3. Physical activity / Steps/day |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
0.19 [-0.21, 0.59] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in steps per day |
1 |
146 |
0.19 [-0.21, 0.59] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
4. Self-management behaviours |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
0.35 [-0.93, 1.64] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-management behaviours |
1 |
62 |
0.35 [-0.93, 1.64] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
5. Dietary habits |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
0.36 [-0.28, 1.0] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in dietary habits |
1 |
62 |
0.36 [-0.28, 1.0] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
6. Physical activity |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
0.13 [-0.33, 0.6] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
2 |
219 |
0.1 [-0.39, 0.59] |
Low |
1.0 |
0.41 [-0.97, 1.79] |
Low |
7. Knowledge |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
1.05 [-0.02, 2.12] |
Very low |
It may increase knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
66 |
1.05 [-0.02, 2.12] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
8. Adherence / Medication (or other treatment) adherence |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
0.43 [-0.83, 1.7] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in adherence |
1 |
62 |
0.43 [-0.83, 1.7] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
9. Quality of life |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
0.06 [-0.5, 0.63] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life |
2 |
219 |
0.04 [-0.57, 0.65] |
Low |
1.0 |
0.21 [-1.34, 1.75] |
Low |
10. Self-efficacy |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
1.6 [0.52, 2.68] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in self-efficacy |
1 |
66 |
1.6 [0.52, 2.68] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
11. Weight (management) / Waist size |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-1.7 [-4.21, 0.81] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size (cm) |
1 |
120 |
-1.7 [-4.21, 0.81] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
12. Lipid profile / LDL-Cholesterol |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-0.1 [-1.58, 1.38] |
Low |
It likely results in little to no difference in LDL levels (mg/dL) |
3 |
300 |
0.01 [-1.55, 1.58] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
-1.07 [-5.68, 3.53] |
Moderate |
13. Lipid profile / HDL-Cholesterol (mmol) |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-0.23 [-2.8, 2.33] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference in HDL levels (mmol/L) |
3 |
304 |
-0.18 [-2.86, 2.5] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
-0.78 [-9.47, 7.9] |
Moderate |
14. Lipid profile / Triglycerides |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-0.08 [-0.43, 0.26] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in triglycerides (mmol/L) |
3 |
314 |
-0.05 [-0.41, 0.32] |
Low |
1.0 |
-0.4 [-1.5, 0.71] |
Low |
15. Weight (management) / Weight (Kgs/lbs) |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-2.5 [-4.6, -0.4] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight (kgs) |
1 |
120 |
-2.5 [-4.6, -0.4] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
16. Blood-pressure / Diastolic pressure |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-5.28 [-12.04, 1.48] |
Very low |
It may decrease diastolic blood pressure(mmHg) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
31 |
-5.28 [-12.04, 1.48] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
17. Lipid profile / Total cholesterol |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
0.04 [-8.53, 8.61] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on total cholesterol (mg/dL) |
1 |
120 |
0.04 [-8.53, 8.61] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
18. Weight (management) / BMI - Body Mass Index |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
0.04 [-0.87, 0.94] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body mass index (kg/m²) |
3 |
222 |
0.03 [-0.94, 1.01] |
Low |
1.0 |
0.05 [-2.51, 2.61] |
Low |
19. HbA1C / Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-0.38 [-0.73, -0.04] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in HbA1C levels (%) but the evidence is very uncertain |
5 |
404 |
-0.38 [-0.74, -0.02] |
Low |
1.0 |
-0.43 [-1.58, 0.72] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 29 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=35); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 2) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 26 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=35); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 7 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=68); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 3 to 12 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 4) a) Number of studies included in the network: 40 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=35); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s) The range of follow up was from 1 to 12 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision 5) a) Number of studies included in the network: 30 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=35); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision 6) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 64 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=108); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 6-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 7) a) Number of studies included in the network: 43 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=34); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 to 60 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision 8) a) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=35); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias 9) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=109); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 60 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 6-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias 10) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=34); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 11) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=60); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 36 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 8 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious risk of bias 12) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and serious incoherence; b) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=145); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 8-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 13) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 162 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=148); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 5- 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 14) a) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=148); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 8-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias 15) a) Number of studies included in the network: 145 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=60); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 51 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 8 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias 16) a) Number of studies included in the network: 211 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=16); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision 17) a) Number of studies included in the network: 176 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=60); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 8 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias 18) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 231 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=106); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s).The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 3-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 19) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision, serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 463 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=200); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 3-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Bauer-2018 2) Bauer-2018 3) Plotnikoff-2013 4) Bauer-2018 5) Bauer-2018 6) Bauer-2018, Plotnikoff-2013 7) Hawkins-2010 8) Bauer-2018 9) Bauer-2018, Plotnikoff-2013 10) Hawkins-2010 11) Hansel-2017 12) de Vasconcelos-2018Hansel-2017Plotnikoff-2013 13) de Vasconcelos-2018, Hansel-2017, Plotnikoff-2013 14) de Vasconcelos-2018, Hansel-2017, Plotnikoff-2013 15) Hansel-2017 16) de Vasconcelos-2018 17) Hansel-2017 18) de Vasconcelos-2018, Oh-2003, Plotnikoff-2013 19) de Vasconcelos-2018, Hansel-2017, Hawkins-2010, Oh-2003, Plotnikoff-2013
|